The survival game

Impression management and strategies of survival under extreme conditions in a Soviet Gulag prison camp

Dados Bibliográficos

ID2059929
AutoresGunnar L H Svendsen (0000-0003-2989-2842, University of Southern Denmark), Urs Steiner Brandt (0000-0003-2568-9759, University of Southern Denmark), Gert Tinggaard Svendsen (0000-0003-1463-5421, University of Southern Denmark)
Ano2023
Volume52
Fascículo3
Páginas509-541
Data de publicação2023-06-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoTheory and Society (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0304-2421 • E-ISSN: 1573-7853
EditoraSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s11186-022-09502-3
OpenAlexW4309028874
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas25

How do people survive under extreme conditions? Will selfish, non-cooperating free-rider types – the solo players – have the best chances of surviving? Or would cooperating, hard-working types – the team players – have higher chances? All morale put aside, it is interesting to know whether non-cooperation or cooperation pays off in a game characterized by scarcity and hard competition for survival. A study of people in such a Hobbesian state of nature can also teach us important lessons about social dynamics in contemporary, prosperous societies. An interesting case of ‘The survival game’ can be found in Solzhenitsyn’s (1963 [1962]) self-biographical book, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, depicting life in a Soviet Gulag prison camp in Siberia January 1951. We use Solzhenitsyn’s work as evidence of the interplay between five player types among prisoners: Cooperative blind-riders (BRs), hard-riders (HRs) and tough-riders (TRs), i.e. the so-called ‘toilers’; non-cooperative easy-riders (ERs), looked upon by the toilers as ‘bastards’, ‘screws’ and ‘errand boys’; and finally Low-riders (LRs), comprising ‘goners’ and ‘jackals’. The main research question addresses the successfulness of the survival strategies of the five player types. Apart from a Multiple Player Approach (MPA) that may be seen as a further development of second-generation theory of collective action (Ostrom & Ahn, 2009), we apply Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory on our case. Hence, we argue that impression management at two different ‘stages’ – the Brigade stage and the Camp stage – is crucial for survival for hard-riding as well as for easy-riding players, in particular strategic masking. Seeking to unite Goffman and game-theoretic MPA, our overall purpose is to make a theoretical contribution to “game-related sociology” (Swedberg, 2001)

Aside · Criminology · Economics · Gulag · Literature · Political science · Prison · Scarcity · Sociology · Survival of the fittest · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Law · Political Conflict and Governance · Psychology · Social Psychology · Sociology and Norbert Elias